That odd upside down generation gap, currently affecting young pastors
  • Kathy
    Posts: 4,978
    The following must be read as sweeping generalizations.

    So the first wave of the reform of the reform occurred with a few liturgists, a few bishops, a few more priests, a small groundswell of musicians, and a whole lot of laity. Then came the internet. Odd duck laity from every parish connected with all the other odd ducks. Groups were formed. They met with resistance. They wrote. They PAID. They suffered.

    A subsequent wave was sponsored by CPDL, CMAA, Giovani Viannini, CCW, etc etc. FREE resources. Then came legislation opening up the use of the pre-post-conciliar form of the Rite. Then came financial pressure on publishers to choose worthier music.

    The majority of Catholics, however, were not in on any of this.

    The people most left out of the recovery were seminarians, who were not allowed by their formators to enjoy beautiful, formal liturgy in many places. Nor were they allowed this as parochial vicars.

    Now the Benedict generation of seminarians are pastors. Are they suddenly going to be encouraged to celebrate the Mass in a beautiful, formal way, without censure?

    It seems unlikely. Baby boomers have the deep pockets now, and they are the last of the Council children, who experienced the before/after Church that felt, to many of those who survived and stayed, like a hermeneutic of rupture. As a group, they do not take kindly to any traditionalist shenanigans.

    So the pastor tries, meets resistance, and inevitably does some things imperfectly. Letters are sent to the bishop. The bishop sees a divided parish.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,482
    More about the "Boomer" generation:
    They were born 1945-1964; their age range is 53-72, and affluent Boomers are at their peak influence in their professions. No wonder they would tend to be influential in their parishes too. In ten years things will be different.

    But still CMAA will be recommending gentle improvement to parish music: nothing precipitous.
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 1,327
    Things are looking up across the 'pond'.

    The 60's generation has almost gone from the churches in Switzerland, and there is very little objection to improvement in the Liturgy (via the TLM route), I should add that there is a strong objection to traditional Catholic teaching within secular society.

    Also things are looking up in England, the biological option is working well.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 1,092
    In Britain, and I imagine elsewhere, there is a clear cultural effect of things falling out of fashion - novels, achitecture, paintings, music - soon after the death of their makers (sometimes earlier) and then being re-discovered several decades later. Perhaps it is nostalgia. As a nearly 79-year-old I recall with pleasure singing the Mass as part of the school congregation. I do not recall any pleasure, or much spiritual uplift, from Sunday low mass, which was a duty performed under pain of eternal damnation. It seems to me that VII, specificly SC, calls for just that participation in the chant, exemplified by GS and Jubilate Deo. It should be possible to appeal aestheticly/culturally/spiritually to those 'Boomers' old enough to have similar experience to mine. What will probably not work is a return to clericalism and 'Pray up, Pay up, Shut up'.
    But still CMAA will be recommending gentle improvement to parish music: nothing precipitous.
    Hear! hear!
  • Liam
    Posts: 3,552
    "So the pastor tries, meets resistance, and inevitably does some things imperfectly. Letters are sent to the bishop. The bishop sees a divided parish."

    It depends on the diocese. The ordinary may refuse to intervene directly, and task the vicar forane or dean to become more involved in getting a sense of things, and/or then the auxiliary bishop (if any) who has effective jurisdiction. They will likely want to see how things shake out over time. Letters alone are not going to do it (nor, by the same token, will laudatory letters suffice to protect a pastor); bishops are quite aware of the dynamic, especially if they have been pastors of a parish for any length of time. Declines in giving and sacramental census over time will be more critical, though not dispositive by any means.
  • I've seen this at my own church and others. We had a young priest who left for an appointment as a navy chaplain. He was raised in a TLM church and was trying to reintroduce chant to our parish. The pastor and the music director were against it, yet the usually non-participating congregation who hears Haugen and Haas week in and week out, was enthusiastic about chant.

    The pastor at the Methodist church I just applied at is also young, and expressed to me a desire to return to traditional music and slowly eliminate their praise band and most contemporary music. He is afraid of the fallout and expects that he will lose people, but wants someone (me) to help him with his vision.

    My grandmother was Methodist and took me with her to church most of my childhood. She told me about how long ago, the pastor made house calls-unannounced. You were expected to be ready at all times and prepare a meal. The purpose of these visits was to make sure people were living the right way-no smoking or drinking (funny because my grandfather was an iron worker and smoked like a chimney and drank like a fish. My mom and aunt remember hiding his stuff.) Maybe that's extreme by today's standards but priests and pastors are the ones in charge. It made me feel sad that this young pastor doesn't yet realize his own authority.

    Things will change. They're already changing.
  • Liam
    Posts: 3,552
    "Maybe that's extreme by today's standards but priests and pastors are the ones in charge. "

    Were (to a degree; note that your parents didn't actually conform to the pastor's expectations, they merely made your grandfather's non-conformity less conspicuous - that's more consistent with historical reality*). They haven't been in a long time. Socially enforced deference to traditional authority in Western civilization was dealt a body blow by the calamity of World War I, though it rippled in waves at different times in different places.

    * I suspect that the joke once made about differentiating Baptists and Catholics would have applied to many Methodists likewise: How do you tell the difference between Baptists (Methodists) and Catholics? The Catholics say hello to each other in the liquor store.
  • kevinfkevinf
    Posts: 1,049
    Okay...I have been in this game since 1984 when I was a poor student in graduate school. To say that things are/have changed is an understatement. Kathy's outline of the successive moves of the reform movement are, in my opinion, very accurate. I would have never guessed or surmised that I personally would be in a parish that is reclaiming Gregorian chant and polyphony when I started in 1985 to clearly see the mess we were in.

    But it seems one of the more significant places where reform is needed is the seminaries. Not because they are doing good liturgy, music, etc., but because there is a need to equip clergy with strategies to make the changes from the "spirit of Vat.II" crowd. It is about local and episcopal politics. It is about when to push hard and when to back off, to make long-term strategies and see victories in the small things. We did not get in this mess overnight and we are not going to make the reform overnight either. The case in North Carolina is a perfect example.

    A small example: my Pastor has been here 3 years and told me last year that one of his main goals liturgically would be to start singing Credo 3 at Easter of this year. He had been waiting 3 years to do it but this was the year in his mind to do it. We prepared the parish, taught it to them and now, we are doing it. The participation is not great and I anticipate a full year of singing it to engage a large swath of people, but the ground was prepared. Has there been any pushback? None whatsoever!

    A further issue to make: CMAA is stuck in a time-warp of about 2005 regarding reform. Greater efforts must be made to engage the next generation in terms of children. How are we going to pass this treasury to the next generation? Ward method? I think not as it brings a sentimentalist's odor to the matter. (Yes, I have training in the Ward method but do not use it.) There are many options and in my opinion, better ones (a combination of RSCM and other methods quickly come to mind). It's time to grow up and deal with things in a long term look. Teaching a 10 year old the neumes is a hell of a lot easier than training my 55 year old singers. Look to where the future really is: kids and Catholic schools. We already have the structure in place. That is the next big area of reform.

    And on that lovely note, I bid you adieu as I move beyond CMAA.
    Thanked by 1TimTheEnchanter
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,224
    The anti–authority streak that Liam cites is intriguing, because clericalism is real, and now both those of more traditional bents fight it as much as or more than liberals do, but it’s troubling nonetheless. At least a century ago you were assured that Father was trying to pass on the faifh. Although certainly that was not always ideal and done in a maxmal way, e.g. Low Mass versus a fully chanted Sung or Solemn Mass, now the Low Mass predominates, and I cannot be the only one who wonders sometimes what the priest really thinks. At least this is the Anglophone case. For continental Europe, the Modernists took hold much earlier in parochial positions.

    @kevinf, hear, hear! Ward perhaps has its place, but not as the only method. You need more advanced training such as that of the RSCM, and while I love the classical Solesmes method, Solesmes itself doesn’t wholeheartedly endorse it, even if Dr. Saulnier went too far in his editions of chant books. Baby steps come first, and it looks like you have the tools to get the job done.
  • irishtenoririshtenor
    Posts: 966
    ...it brings a sentamentalist's odor to the matter.


    Could someone with more Ward experience than I explain this statement? I'd love to understand better.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 4,978
    The Solesmes, anti-Solesmes, New Solesmes argument is a separate matter.

    This is a thread about general ecclesiastical trends and how they may be affecting young pastors.
  • matthewjmatthewj
    Posts: 2,559
    The Solesmes, anti-Solesmes, New Solesmes argument is a separate matter.


    But isn't this really the heart of every question? Including questions like "what's for breakfast?"
    Thanked by 1Adam Wood
  • I hope not to trespass upon Kathy's theme. It does seem to me that the following are pertinent.

    When HF Benedict restored the Tridentine rite there was much talk of 'cross polinisation' with and influence upon the Novus ordo. Have any of us witnessed or know about such polinisation? What specific characteristics or elements have become a part of NO praxis at any given parish? And so on, in the same vein.

    Too, it was often said when the Ordinariate was erected that its use and praxis would have a positive influence on the NO. Has anyone witnessed this actually happening? If so, in what specific manner has it happened? (I am aware that some of our forumites are avowed Anglophiles. What 'Anglicanisms' do they exhibit in their liturgical praxis?)

    Also too, it seems that there is something of a trend to celebrate the NO on its own self-referential terms in a more appropriate manner than has been customary for past decades. What characteristics define such 'act cleaning up' as opposed to what may or may not have been leached from Tridentine or Ordinariate use?
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    ,,,a hermeneutic of rupture,,,

    Just to be clear, if I'm reading these sweeping generalizations right, does not the above also represent influential clerics and scholars (Kocik, Schaefer, Kirby etc.) who've sequestered their own practice and study to the VO, not only abandoning a modernist NO circumstance but any and all degrees of RotR? Isn't that course a sort of liturgical "Benedict Option?" There often seems some sort of imperative for a sweeping and wholesale "Johnstown Flood" solution to our woes; isn't that also, after all, a catastrophic scenario?

    Jackson, I believe there's anecdotal evidence aplenty of that cross-pollenating in well-known (Cantius/St.James, Seattle, St. Anne's, Palo Alto) and other parishes worldwide.
  • Jackson, I believe...

    Specific elements of praxis?
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    They're chronicled quite completely in this forum, the Café, CCW, NLM and elsewhere. For expedience I would research the praxis of Mahrt's parish in Palo Alto, or perhaps Christ our Light Cathedral/deVos of Oakland for more recent developments.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 4,978

    Just to be clear, if I'm reading these sweeping generalizations right, does not the above also represent influential clerics and scholars (Kocik, Schaefer, Kirby etc.) who've sequestered their own practice and study to the VO, not only abandoning a modernist NO circumstance but any and all degrees of RotR? I

    Melo, I don't pretend to understand your post, nor even most of this quote here, but insofar as I do, perhaps they are included in "a few liturgists" in the OP.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 4,978
    Jackson: Great questions!!
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    Ouch, Kathy.
    I'll try to Strunk&White: When influential folks decide the NO has nothing to offer them, is that also a form of the "hermeneutic of rupture?"
    Backing out of the room slowly now....
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 7,998
    The whole notion that the VO is going to pollinate the NO to me is nonsense. Sheer. While Benedict seemingly straddled the two camps and tried to mend the gap between them, the RoftheR ultimately appears as a desperate modernist attempt to somehow redeem the NO. Sprinting out of the room. Throw knives if you want. I don't think they will stick. Time will bring everything to bear.
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,890
    The hermeneutic of rupture is a relative concept: it depends upon what one considers having been ruptured. If we are comparing the Novus Ordo to what came before it, it is very reasonable to conclude that, at least in practice, it is not a continuation of what came before. One only needs to consider the numerous practices that have been abandoned since the NO came into use. The NO does not prescribe that many of these practices be abandoned, however, it does permit them to be. Some have been abandoned by design, such as the Rite of Sprinkling before High Mass because the Novus Ordo does not have the concept of High and Low Mass.
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,574
    The only "high" mass anymore is when the priest and servers have been smoking weed.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw igneus
  • ---because the Novus Ordo does not have the concept of High and Low Mass.

    This is a truism of which certain types never tire of reminding us. And how they do use it to justify their lower than low mentality. It should not go unstressed, though, that what Vatican II envisioned as normative unarguably more resembles the high than the low mass. This unassailable verity, when properly assimilated, would suggest a far more gracious ritual, a far more gorgeous ceremonial, and far more chanting of ritual text than is to be found in all but the rarest of Catholic churches since the council - and would invite such addenda as the asperges.
    Thanked by 1hilluminar
  • Liam
    Posts: 3,552
    smoking weed...or drinking Red Bull.
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,890
    It should not go unstressed, though, that what Vatican II envisioned as normative unarguably more resembles the high than the low mass.


    Yes. When one reads the text of the GIRM and Sacrosanctum Concilium, one does get the idea that a fuller, more High Mass-like ritual was envisioned. However, and I do not tire of saying this, the Novus Ordo permits much less, and people are taking advantage of those permissions.

    This unassailable verity, when properly assimilated, would suggest a far more gracious ritual, a far more gorgeous ceremonial, and far more chanting of ritual text than is to be found in all but the rarest of Catholic churches since the council - and would invite such addenda as the asperges.


    Again, yes, it very much would at that. However, I disagree that the asperges is an addendum to the Mass, although it occurs outside of it. According to His Grace Archbishop Fulton Sheen, the asperges comes from time immemorial and no one knows where or when it began. He also mentioned in the same statement that the Church has (or at least had) a long standing rule of not removing any practices which had been handed down to Her. This can all be found in his 1940 narration of an Easter Sunday Mass at Our Lady of Sorrows in Chicago. It is a very famous training video for the Traditional Mass, and many on this forum have already viewed it. I have it saved to my computer at school, and I show it to the students when we talk about traditional Church music.
  • NihilNominis
    Posts: 325
    'cross polinisation'. . .?


    1) The men of my parish choir now sing the TLM once a month.
    2) The repertoire is planned together to encourage active collaboration between the musicians for joint concerts &c.
    3) The chanting that is de-facto at the TLM has improved the chanting of the Caecilian Choir men immensely.
    4) There is a bi-monthly men's group meeting at the parish that is made up of members of both congregations, worshipping using the TLM.
    5) In turn, members of the TLM congregation have been seen at our English Tenebrae service, and for the Triduum in the new rite at the parish, especially those involved in the music, since they are increasingly confident that the celebration of the liturgy will be worthy and reverent.

    At my old parish:

    The TLM schola with which I worked and directed for a time (it was a homeless choir, but very active all over the city) would fill out my parish choir for Confirmation at the Cathedral, and insure that the chants (Veni, Sancte Spiritus & Veni Creator) and pieces of polyphony (Byrd's Ave Verum, Tallis' If Ye Love Me, &c.) were executed well.

    This collaboration also led to weekly Stations of the Cross with choral music on the Fridays of Lent, with a call choir composed of members of the Cincinnati Latin Mass Schola Cantorum and the St. Thomas More parish choir. Bruckner, Rheinberger, Palestrina, Byrd, Victoria were all heard at one time or another during these very moving choral services.

    These weekly Stations led to the interest in and formation of a small group within the parish choir devoted to polyphony and more difficult repertoire.

    For the first Mass of Fr. Matt Feist, a son of the pairsh, the TLM choir assisted in the gallery; the Mass was solemn, with full propers, multiple polyphonic offerings, and very worthy hymnody, but a N.O. in English.

    I cannot imagine a world without Summorum; almost all of the improvement in musical quality I have been able to accomplish has been through cross-pollination.

    Not to mention that, through my own experience with the traditional Mass, I am personally cross-pollination.

    Yes. When one reads the text of the GIRM and Sacrosanctum Concilium, one does get the idea that a fuller, more High Mass-like ritual was envisioned. However, and I do not tire of saying this, the Novus Ordo permits much less, and people are taking advantage of those permissions.


    And this is not a "new" thing. So often traditionalists quote Cardinal Heenan's comment on the "new normative" Mass demonstration in an attempt to defame and degrade the new ritual.

    But this is a real false friend. If you read Heenan's plaint, you quickly discover that the substance of his concern is not that a reduction in ceremonial and musical impoverishment will "effeminize" the Mass and drive all but the women and children away, but rather that the reformed liturgy, which (I paraphrase slightly) "cannot have been devised by any with real pastoral experience," envisions sung liturgy rather than read liturgy as normative, and he further asserts that it is to the read Mass that the devotion of the people, and especially the men, is primarily attached.

    The direct quote:

    "[A]fter studying the so called Normative Mass it was clear to me that few of them can have been parish priests. I cannot think that anyone with pastoral experience would have regarded the sung Mass as being of first importance.

    At home it is not only women and children but also fathers of families and young men who come regularly to Mass. If we were to offer them the kind of ceremony we saw yesterday in the Sistine Chapel (a demonstration of the Normative Mass) we would soon he left with a congregation mostly of women and children. Our people love the Mass but it is Low Mass without psalm-singing and other musical embellishments to which they are chiefly attached.
    "

    So much for music as an "integral part" of the solemn liturgy. Psalm-singing an "embellishment," indeed!
    Thanked by 1Arthur Connick
  • What an unfortunate mind!

    Yet another self-styled authority who projects his own idiocy onto others.
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 1,327
    That is rather unfair to Cardinal Heenan, who did more to keep the sung liturgy than many others. Colin Mawby has spoken of this many times at our chant weekends...
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 1,092
    Heenan also obtained an indult to keep the TLM permitted in England&Wales.
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,890
    His Eminence also said the following:

    1. The rule of prayer is the rule of faith. If there is to be more emphasis in the Mass on Bible readings than on Eucharistic prayer the faith of both clergy and people will be weakened.


    2. There is more need than ever today to stress the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. No change in the Mass should he made which might seem to throw doubt on this doctrine.


    3. Many bishops in this Synod have spoken of the need of coming to the rescue of the faithful grown restless and disturbed on account of too frequent changes in the Mass. I must therefore ask what attitude the Consilium will take to these warnings from the pastors of the Church? I confess in all seriousness that I am uneasy lest the liturgists say: "These bishops know nothing about liturgy." It would be tragic if after the bishops have gone home, no notice were to be taken of their opinions.


    4. In my diocese of Westminster - and in several other English dioceses - the rule is that at least one Mass each Sunday must be celebrated in Latin. It would be a great help if the Consilium were to tell the whole Church how the Latin tongue can be preserved. If the Church is to remain truly the Catholic Church it is essential to keep a universal tongue.


    The above is from the following website: http://ccfather.blogspot.com/2012/04/cardinal-heenan-on-new-mass.html

    My thoughts on the above:

    1. His Eminence quotes lex orandi, lex credendi, and quite accurately so. He is cautioning that changing the Mass in any way will lead to a change in the faith, and risks weakening it.

    2. His Eminence is again warning that belief in the Real Presence is at risk in the "Normative Mass," as he has seen it.

    3. I'm not really sure what His Eminence is getting at here. I think he is concerned first with exiting the Second Vatican Council and having the bishops look like fools for what they've done there. He also mentions "too frequent changes in the Mass," which could possibly be yet another warning against changing the Mass any further, as according to his statement, the Mass had already begun to change significantly, to the point where common people were taking notice.

    4. His Eminence makes a great observation here: "If the Church is to remain truly the Catholic Church, it is essential to keep a universal tongue." I think that it is possible that the resistance against Gregorian chant, or chant of any kind, is a resistance against the Latin language, which I also think is a misguided attempt at "ecumenism."

    I do not know what the "Normative Mass" that His Eminence experienced was like, but I would very much like to have been there, as it would make understanding his commentary on it much more feasible. I cannot approach the subject of what he saw there, as much as I would like to discuss it further.

    I think that one aspect of the music that drives men away from the Church is being forced to sing and be exposed to trite, hokey, and primarily emotional songs during the Mass, many of which do not have much to do with the Mass itself. There is a simplistic and infantile nature to the structure, composition, and even the text of many of these songs that make some of them sound more like nursery rhymes than music suited to the worship of the Lord.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 1,092
    Annibale Bugnini has a couple of pages on this experiment in his opus pp348ff. "It must be said flatly that the experiment was not a success ..." It was celebrated in the Sistine Chapel, in Italian, for the 1967 Synod of Bishops, who had to pretendimagine that they were a typical Italian parish. Music from GS, celebrant Bugnini [does this imply Bugnini sang?], small choir, lector, cantor, two altar servers. "The celebration must therefore have left many of the Fathers with the impression of something artificial, overly pedantic, and quite unparochial ..."
  • My rash reaction has led to my enlightenment.
    Many thanks.
    Still - if he said what he is said to have said above, it seems a poor and demeaning assessment of men in general. Part of the rationale for the poorness of most post-council liturgy is the rash (utterly irrational) assumption that 'the people' aren't worthy of, are incapable of, or couldn't appreciate anything better. This is neither complimentary of the people, true of them, nor pastorally mature.
  • In defense of the
    we would soon he left with a congregation mostly of women and children.
    as a result of the change in the Mass..... LOOK AROUND YOU. How many Knights of Columbus Councils don't actually support vocations? How many men look and feel foolish at the Ordo of Paul VI? How many writhing wretches bend over backward to make sure women are included and priests are reduced? In how many parishes is Our Lord pushed to a broom closet? Are there, still, processions in which men carry either a statue or an umbrellino?
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 1,092
    Most of the senior archbishops present in 1967 would experience their own low mass, almost daily, and quite a lot of solemn masses. They would have little recent experience of a missa cantata - High Mass in an average parish on a routine Sunday. But this was the sort of thing being demonstrated, and calling it missa normativa could be taken to mean that a said Mass (of which an average English parish would have several on a Sunday) would be banned. So those wedded to pastoral provision of many low Masses, and those wedded to the glories of sacred music, were united in hostility to an intermediate form of celebration.
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 1,327
    In Cardinal Heenan's time the City (London) churches were packed at lunchtime with men attending Mass in their lunch break... I think he is referring to the weekday Low Masses, that were popular with working men rather than Sunday Masses. It should also be noted that men in his time filled the choirs, Sanctuaries and the various guilds.

    N.B. It was ++Heenan that refused to close the choir school at Westminster and disband the male choir, in the face of a concerted effort by some clergy to impose their vision of the Reform of Vat II. In other places the clergy were successful against weaker bishops and we can all see what they left.
  • Evelyn Waugh wasn't overly impressed with the later incarnations of Cardinal Heenan. I don't know what that proves, but I find it interesting.

  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 1,092
    Evelyn Waugh was I think not much impressed by anything in this world, including himself.
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,629
    What specific characteristics or elements have become a part of NO praxis at any given parish?


    At a near-western suburban parish (Milwaukee Archdiocese) the M.D. has inserted the text of the Introit, Offertory, and Communion propers (in English) in the programs. On occasion, those texts (with verses) are sung. In addition, some Chant is (usually) sung--but not by the congregation. There are some minor problems with the way the Chant is rendered, but it's there, along with the actual propers.
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,629
    we would soon he left with a congregation mostly of women and children. Our people love the Mass but it is Low Mass without psalm-singing and other musical embellishments to which they are chiefly attached. "


    One notes that the Cardinal is not expressing his personal preference here--and if one does not note that, one is obtuse.

    By co-incidence I just heard a podcast-interview with Kwasniewski during which the interviewer remarked that '...the NO does not give me an opportunity to PRAY....' (or very close to that.)

    He's right, you know. The continuous claptrap music-reading-music-preaching-music-reciting-music-reciting-music-shuffling-music-exiting is, frankly, oppressive.

    You may call that "idiocy" if you like. I have a response prepared, of course.
    Thanked by 1ClergetKubisz
  • ...his personal preference here - ...

    It may or may not be his personal preference, but it is a thoughtless and poor indictment of 'the laity' - reflective of the terminal case of the cultivated and imposed 'Catholics can't' syndrome which infects hierarchy and laity alike from the top down. A more intelligent, mature, and truly loving reaction might have been 'ahh, this is lovely - I want my people to have this'.
    ______________________________

    I disagree that the NO invites the sad scenarios of which Dad29 speaks. (And I am sad that he has to endure them.) That such scenarios are commonplace is well known amongst us. That they are required or even 'invited' by it is unfair. They are imposed upon it by liturgical idiots who have little if any understanding of the sanctity of the mass. This results from incredibly, unbelievably, poor catechesis in seminaries and ordinary parishes. As I've suggested numerous times before, if the NO hadn't come along and the EF had been the only thing at hand, this fever would have been inflicted on the it by the same sort of people, the products of our time - to whom nothing is holy and to whom cultural illiteracy is not only not shameful, but treasured. When we stop blaming the rite and begin celebrating it as the crucible for the ineffable inter-action betwixt heaven and earth that it is, and which it invites, we will put an end to the sick abuses that are so insouciantly cast upon it.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 1,092
    Initially this crass execution of the NO was introduced by priests who had been schooled in the Tridentine form. I would guess that they also had incredibly poor liturgical catechesis in seminary, and that liturgical formation then was mainly a matter of training in unexplained gestures and movements, and on the priest's own spiritual sustenance. I hope the situation is improving, twenty years ago it was still dire. That meant that some seminarians were discovering liturgical writings like Ratzinger's for themselves in an unsupportive environment, those who accepted it were likely to come out combative, and find an unsupportive situation in their early assignements.
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 7,998
    When we stop blaming the rite and begin celebrating it as the crucible for the ineffable inter-action betwixt heaven and earth that it is, and which it invites, we will put an end to the sick abuses that are so insouciantly cast upon it.

    The rite (NO) is erroneous in its inception, is not organic, and in the words of B16 himself, is a " banal fabrication". How can one defend that platform? It may be valid but it could also well be illicit. I cannot count the number of illicit Masses of which I have been present. All the abuse stems from the liberties the NO appears to condone.

    I don't know if it will ever be possible to stop the offences against God and Holy Mother Church through its practice.

    The liturgical reform, in its concrete realization, has distanced itself even more from its origin. The result has not been a reanimation, but devastation. In place of the liturgy, fruit of a continual development, they have placed a fabricated liturgy. They have deserted a vital process of growth and becoming in order to substitute a fabrication. They did not want to continue the development, the organic maturing of something living through the centuries, and they replaced it, in the manner of technical production, by a fabrication, a banal product of the moment. (Ratzinger in Revue Theologisches, Vol. 20, Feb. 1990, pgs. 103-104)
  • eft94530eft94530
    Posts: 1,551
    http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html


    II. The Promotion of Liturgical Instruction and Active Participation

    14. Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy. Such participation by the Christian people as "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people (1 Pet. 2:9; cf. 2:4-5), is their right and duty by reason of their baptism.

    In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else; [OKAY FOLKS .. nothing more to see here .. move along .. you can stop reading the rest of this doc] for it is the primary and indispensable source from which the faithful are to derive the true Christian spirit; and therefore pastors of souls must zealously strive to achieve it, by means of the necessary instruction, in all their pastoral work.

    Yet it would be futile to entertain any hopes of realizing this unless the pastors themselves, in the first place, become thoroughly imbued with the spirit and power of the liturgy, and undertake to give instruction about it. A prime need, therefore, is that attention be directed, first of all, to the liturgical instruction of the clergy. Wherefore the sacred Council has decided to enact as follows:

    15. Professors who are appointed to teach liturgy in seminaries, religious houses of study, and theological faculties must be properly trained for their work in institutes which specialize in this subject.

    16. The study of sacred liturgy is to be ranked among the compulsory and major courses in seminaries and religious houses of studies; in theological faculties it is to rank among the principal courses. It is to be taught under its theological, historical, spiritual, pastoral, and juridical aspects. Moreover, other professors, while striving to expound the mystery of Christ and the history of salvation from the angle proper to each of their own subjects, must nevertheless do so in a way which will clearly bring out the connection between their subjects and the liturgy, as also the unity which underlies all priestly training. This consideration is especially important for professors of dogmatic, spiritual, and pastoral theology and for those of holy scripture.

    17. In seminaries and houses of religious, clerics shall be given a liturgical formation in their spiritual life. For this they will need proper direction, so that they may be able to understand the sacred rites and take part in them wholeheartedly; and they will also need personally to celebrate the sacred mysteries, as well as popular devotions which are imbued with the spirit of the liturgy. In addition they must learn how to observe the liturgical laws, so that life in seminaries and houses of religious may be thoroughly influenced by the spirit of the liturgy.

    18. Priests, both secular and religious, who are already working in the Lord's vineyard are to be helped by every suitable means to understand ever more fully what it is that they are doing when they perform sacred rites; they are to be aided to live the liturgical life and to share it with the faithful entrusted to their care.

    19. With zeal and patience, pastors of souls must promote the liturgical instruction of the faithful, and also their active participation in the liturgy both internally and externally, taking into account their age and condition, their way of life, and standard of religious culture. By so doing, pastors will be fulfilling one of the chief duties of a faithful dispenser of the mysteries of God; and in this matter they must lead their flock not only in word but also by example.

    20. Transmissions of the sacred rites by radio and television shall be done with discretion and dignity, under the leadership and direction of a suitable person appointed for this office by the bishops. This is especially important when the service to be broadcast is the Mass.

    III. The Reform of the Sacred Liturgy

    21. In order that the Christian people may more certainly derive an abundance of graces from the sacred liturgy, holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself. For the liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. These not only may but ought to be changed with the passage of time if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become unsuited to it.

    In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community.

    Wherefore the sacred Council establishes the following general norms:

    A) General norms

    22. 1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.

    2. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.

    3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.


    I think # 21 has a money quote "anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become unsuited to it."